• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

**** Just Got Real in Japan

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AMCRambler said:
Man, sucks to be living there right now.

This meltdown serves to remind us how dangerous nuclear power can be. The Japanese are probably one of the most stringent and careful when it comes to managing their plants. If it can happen to them, it can happen to any of us. One thing I don't seem to be hearing a lot of is "This could have been avoided" which tells me they did everything right and still got hosed. That really sucks.
Click to expand...

Did you forget what caused all of this? One of the biggest earthquakes in history combined with one of the biggest tsunamis.

On top of that its a reactor design that 50 year old. If anything I say this shows how safe nuclear power is. It of course also highlights some weaknesses in planning and design which can be accounted for in new construction.
 
Shit if this hits the core it would cause a catastrophic stellar ignition and turn the earth into a dwarf star.

We need to get someone out there with some kind of special vessel that can drill into the area and scoop up the radio active stuff before we end up blowing up the earth.
 
bignateyk said:
Wait.. if this were actually true, couldn't they just shut down the reactor before this happened?
Click to expand...

The actual reactor is not a machine, its a solid state device. Its a single contained unity. The radioactive decay causes increased activity which then increases radioactive decay. That produces a LOT of heat, which is what we're harnessing. It gets hot, we throw some water on it, the water takes away the heat and produces steam, the steam turns turbines. But if we don't keep cooling it, it overheats, and we're screwed.

So no, you can't turn it off. You have to preemptively dismantle it while in a controlled state. They kind of missed that window of opportunity.
 
SagaLore said:
The actual reactor is not a machine, its a solid state device. Its a single contained unity. The radioactive decay causes increased activity which then increases radioactive decay. That produces a LOT of heat, which is what we're harnessing. It gets hot, we throw some water on it, the water takes away the heat and produces steam, the steam turns turbines. But if we don't keep cooling it, it overheats, and we're screwed.

So no, you can't turn it off. You have to preemptively dismantle it while in a controlled state. They kind of missed that window of opportunity.
Click to expand...

What if we replace the water with ice water? That would make it colder. So, what we need is some ice. Lots and lots of ice.
 
SagaLore said:
The actual reactor is not a machine, its a solid state device. Its a single contained unity. The radioactive decay causes increased activity which then increases radioactive decay. That produces a LOT of heat, which is what we're harnessing. It gets hot, we throw some water on it, the water takes away the heat and produces steam, the steam turns turbines. But if we don't keep cooling it, it overheats, and we're screwed.

So no, you can't turn it off. You have to preemptively dismantle it while in a controlled state. They kind of missed that window of opportunity.
Click to expand...

You can turn it off, you just stop the reaction with enough neutron absorbers.
 
SagaLore said:
The actual reactor is not a machine, its a solid state device. Its a single contained unity. The radioactive decay causes increased activity which then increases radioactive decay. That produces a LOT of heat, which is what we're harnessing. It gets hot, we throw some water on it, the water takes away the heat and produces steam, the steam turns turbines. But if we don't keep cooling it, it overheats, and we're screwed.

So no, you can't turn it off. You have to preemptively dismantle it while in a controlled state. They kind of missed that window of opportunity.
Click to expand...

If they stopped supplying it with fuel, wouldn't it stop and cool down on its own at some point before it sunk through the earth?
 
What they think is going on in #1 is mostly based on computer models. As long as the unit has cooling the ability of corium to eat through the barriers is vastly reduced. The TEPCO report seems to detail a worst case scenario. Given previous experience at TMI and Chernobyl it's highly unlikely much (if any) would get through the pressure vessel or let alone the reactor pad.
 
Harv.jpg
 
That lack of basic nuclear knowledge that is present in this thread is appalling. I sincerely hope my sarcasm meter has been damaged by something... :biggrin:
 
busydude said:
When is S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Fukushima coming out?
Click to expand...

I wonder if people would get offended this soon afterwards...

It'd be a nice departure though. We've had 3 set in Chernobyl already. And hey, can have Americana military this time around.
 
Since enriched uranium is heavy. Why not build like a long tube in the ground and fire at high velocity a slab of uranium against the molten uranium mass from the reactor. That should push it right out of the ground and out so it can be scooped up.
 
Hugo Drax said:
Since enriched uranium is heavy. Why not build like a long tube in the ground and fire at high velocity a slab of uranium against the molten uranium mass from the reactor. That should push it right out of the ground and out so it can be scooped up.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify - you want more highly enriched nuclear fuel to be SHOT at melted fuel?
 
Rubycon said:
That lack of basic nuclear knowledge that is present in this thread is appalling. I sincerely hope my sarcasm meter has been damaged by something... :biggrin:
Click to expand...

Well, quite honestly I never think about nuclear reactors all to often. I've lost a lot of that basic knowledge thinking about other things such as what my daughter wants to wear for school the next day, or has my kitty eaten, or has my wife come home for dinner yet. You know, the important stuff. 😀
 
BoomerD said:
Well, duh...use the snow makers like they do at the ski resorts!!

SnowMakingMachine.jpg
Click to expand...

That's just a near zero static vaneaxial and the MBH capacity in airborne frost is probably a fraction so tiny of what's needed to make a difference. 😉

Now if you could bring down billions of cubic meters per second of air from the troposphere in a virtual path secured by a toroidal plasma channel you could probably freeze it so fast it would be like the ice cube in the deep fryer - inside out. Imaging skiing down a mountain of ice seeing the eerie phosphorescent Cherenkov glow. 😉
 
Rubycon said:
That's just a near zero static vaneaxial and the MBH capacity in airborne frost is probably a fraction so tiny of what's needed to make a difference. 😉

Now if you could bring down billions of cubic meters per second of air from the troposphere in a virtual path secured by a toroidal plasma channel you could probably freeze it so fast it would be like the ice cube in the deep fryer - inside out. Imaging skiing down a mountain of ice seeing the eerie phosphorescent Cherenkov glow. 😉
Click to expand...

You know Dawn, you scare me.
 
we could pump ln2 into the ground around the reactor. Not sure if this would be worth the effort as the heat mass must be very impressive but it may slow it down a bit if it gets to that point.

also, it could be possible to freeze the water table around the site.

we should probably be drilling down at least that far now to monitor it.
 
Last edited:
Rubycon said:
That lack of basic nuclear knowledge that is present in this thread is appalling. I sincerely hope my sarcasm meter has been damaged by something... :biggrin:
Click to expand...

I only have a basic knowledge of nuclear reactor workings. Would you mind giving us a quick run down of whether this is just an "absolute worst case scenario" press release, or if there is some validity/real possibility of water table pollution, etc.

Oh, also, just in honor of the thread title:
real.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top